Amongst those 19M results will be links that have just "bin" or just "laden" or just "dead" or just "long" or just "before" or just "raid" or the myriad combinations of those words in them and many links will be to identical content on different sites...

However its interesting to note that if you Google the specific phrase "bin laden dead before raid" (keep the " quotes around the phrase), you only get 7 hits.

If you include "long" ("bin laden dead long before raid") you get 3 hits...

Googling "bin laden dead long before US raid" brings back about 201,000 hits, but most seem to reference the same or very similar article or posts on other message boards.

Cz

Edited October 29, 2011 by Czero 101

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Solipsi Rai 851

Solipsi Rai 851

Find a conspiracy theory here on the astro.com star chart when the first Twin Tower was attacked on Sept. 11, 2011 at 08:45 EDT...and other following events like the plane hitting the Pentagon and the heroic redirect of another hijacked plane Shanksville, Pa. occurred from 9 to 10:30 EDT.

Well, the Moon and true node are close in the sign of Gemini, the Sun in Virgo next to an ascendant Libra and a traffic jam of the planets in Cancer with the dawn sighting of the "morning star" Venus in Leo.

And to the opposite 3 more planets on Sagittarius and Capricorn, with Scorpio in between below the invisible northern horizon (daytime)...and the last two signs: Aquarius-Pisces already set below, while the first two signs: Aries-Taurus descending on the other side.

One can interpret what the astrological projection on the very moment on that dreadful day to live in infamy, but to see Gemini (the symbol is "II") symbolizes the Twin Towers, the number "9" as in 09:00AM EDT when another hijacked airliner struck the second tower.

Meteorologists had recorded weather conditions on NYC: a warm clear Tuesday with perfect weather in the lower 80s fahrenheit, and two tropical storms off the New England coast with Long Island, Cape Cod and Martha's Vineyard or Nantucket under partly cloudy skies.

On 9/11/ (20) 01...around 9AM...two tropical storms...the sign of Gemini, though not the second sign of the astrological zodiac. A whole lot of coincidences in mother nature pinpointed to a tragic event on the social, political and cultural scale of mankind. Remember, 9/11 was a terrible event not only for New Yorkers or Washington DC, but for Americans and the entire world as well.

Edited October 29, 2011 by DeMikeDe

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Wandering 65

Wandering 65

Find a conspiracy theory here on the astro.com star chart when the first Twin Tower was attacked on Sept. 11, 2011 at 08:45 EDT...and other following events like the plane hitting the Pentagon and the heroic redirect of another hijacked plane Shanksville, Pa. occurred from 9 to 10:30 EDT.

Well, the Moon and true node are close in the sign of Gemini, the Sun in Virgo next to an ascendant Libra and a traffic jam of the planets in Cancer with the dawn sighting of the "morning star" Venus in Leo.

And to the opposite 3 more planets on Sagittarius and Capricorn, with Scorpio in between below the invisible northern horizon (daytime)...and the last two signs: Aquarius-Pisces already set below, while the first two signs: Aries-Taurus descending on the other side.

One can interpret what the astrological projection on the very moment on that dreadful day to live in infamy, but to see Gemini (the symbol is "II") symbolizes the Twin Towers, the number "9" as in 09:00AM EDT when another hijacked airliner struck the second tower.

Meteorologists had recorded weather conditions on NYC: a warm clear Tuesday with perfect weather in the lower 80s fahrenheit, and two tropical storms off the New England coast with Long Island, Cape Cod and Martha's Vineyard or Nantucket under partly cloudy skies.

On 9/11/ (20) 01...around 9AM...two tropical storms...the sign of Gemini, though not the second sign of the astrological zodiac. A whole lot of coincidences in mother nature pinpointed to a tragic event on the social, political and cultural scale of mankind. Remember, 9/11 was a terrible event not only for New Yorkers or Washington DC, but for Americans and the entire world as well.

Can you expand on the symbolism of the planets involved and why they hinted at a tragic event? I find the idea that planets affect life quite interesting.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Q24 429

Q24 429

I will tell you the true story about Bin Laden. He was a sick man on dialysis. He probably died years before and his body was probably discovered earlier this year buried in Afghanistan by our soldiers. Now the Obama administration had a problem. IF they admitted they found his body, President Bush would get the credit. So the made up the story about him living in that house and the supposed assassination.

The problem with the theory is that it relies on the above red text. It is a stretch to think the Obama administration staged the entire operation along with fabricating the back story (from loss of the multi-million dollar helicopter to DNA testing) and risk having that contested… rather than… just report that bin Laden died years ago of kidney failure? I’m sure the Bush administration wouldn’t get any credit for that. The Obama administration would still take credit for finding the body and confirming the death.

There is a very obvious solution that hasn’t caught on as much as I thought it would: bin Laden was placed under control immediately after 9/11 and held under house arrest, with the recent assassination being genuine. There is evidence for this in early media reports and extremely strong evidence in circumstance of the compound. It fits with other evidence such as that in my last post and known movement of bin Laden. A number of mainstream media commentators have supported it also.

Lt Col Ralph Peters, whilst praising the U.S. operation, had this to say: -

“I think the reason bin Laden stayed there so long was very straightforward - he was a prisoner in a gilded cage. The Pakistani ISI

had

him there, he wasn't free to go. They were in my view keeping him there until they needed him. So it was a gentle imprisonment.

I worked with the Pakistanis at least briefly in the 90s, I have followed them for a long time. And there is

that the ISI knew he was there and helped him. It is my supposition that he wasn’t free to go, the deal was he wasn’t free to go and they protected him.”

Raelynn Hillhouse, an American security analyst with contacts in the intelligence services has said: -

“My sources tell me that the informant claimed that the Saudis were paying off the Pakistani military and intelligence (ISI) to essentially shelter and keep bin Laden under house arrest in Abbottabad, a city with such a high concentration of military that I'm told there's no equivalent in the US.”

Another security analyst, Juan Zarate, commented: -

“One of the things that surprised me (in viewing the video) is, with bin Laden having been in this compound for about five, maybe six years, it's a little bit like he was under house arrest. He was really a prisoner, in a sense, in this compound. And so, what we may be looking at is a dimension of the prison that he was in for about five years there in Abbottabad.”

I don’t understand why so many claim the whole assassination was faked when the above makes so much sense. Is it not a big enough conspiracy? Once you have the ISI and Saudis tied in then it is very easy to connect to Western intelligence. Osama bin Laden was a prisoner of the same powers that would benefit from the ‘War on Terror’. He was of more benefit to the pretext alive where his statements could be continue to be released (and vetted). The Obama administration and intelligence agents not in the loop eventually caught wind of the situation and did what could be expected.

What I’m not clear about is the official story on this - is there one? I mean, is it that the compound was a terrorist safe-house or that legitimate Pakistani intelligence and/or military elements were involved? It appears the latter that is widely and officially accepted. If so, the lack of U.S. response and action is most telling.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Mike 215 3

Mike 215 3

If he was killed on that day, then why withold pictures of his body? The administration claims that the entire Moslem world would rise up if such pictures were release. However, we had no problem releasing pictures of a dead Saddam Hussein and his sons or pictures of the former dead leader of Libya.

It is obvious that the administration is lying about the reasons for withholding those pictures and even films of the so called funeral at sea. And that answer is that the body they have is nothing more then skin and bones after being buried for years in the desert. OF couse they could have tried to use the body of an actor or a mannequin to simulate him, but that could lead to other problems such as questins about the Apollo pictures and the Martian rocks.

So the best answer to these problems is to withhold the pictures from the public.

Amongst those 19M results will be links that have just "bin" or just "laden" or just "dead" or just "long" or just "before" or just "raid" or the myriad combinations of those words in them and many links will be to identical content on different sites...

However its interesting to note that if you Google the specific phrase "bin laden dead before raid" (keep the " quotes around the phrase), you only get 7 hits.

If you include "long" ("bin laden dead long before raid") you get 3 hits...

Googling "bin laden dead long before US raid" brings back about 201,000 hits, but most seem to reference the same or very similar article or posts on other message boards.

That is rather interesting. However, from the first few links that popped up, I think there's a very good reason that these similar articles have gone viral; we're talking Iranian and Pakistani intelligence here, not some mass media outlet's gushing over the latest white house approved script. Which brings us back to the rest of my post...

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Scott G 4

Scott G 4

If he was killed on that day, then why withold pictures of his body? The administration claims that the entire Moslem world would rise up if such pictures were release[d]. However, we had no problem releasing pictures of a dead Saddam Hussein and his sons or pictures of the former dead leader of Libya.

Good point.

It is obvious that the administration is lying about the reasons for withholding those pictures and even films of the so called funeral at sea.

I don't think it's obvious, atleast not to anyone who hasn't done enough research, but given enough analysis, I think that the conclusion is more or less right; there's just one caveat; are they withholding these pictures or could it be that they don't even exist? Another point to consider; has anyone noticed that to this day, we don't know the precise military men who apparently invaded "Bin Laden's" compound? It looks like they may well have been killed shortly after allegedly killing "Bin Laden":

If the people killed in the Pakistani compound didn't include one Bin Laden, it would certainly make it easier to keep this truth secret if the people who allegedly killed him all died.

And that answer is that the body they have is nothing more then skin and bones after being buried for years in the desert...

Personally, I'm still not sure as to the fate of Bin Laden, although I'm fairly sure that he's dead by now. I think a good place to start any such investigation would be wikipedia's web page on the various theories as to when and where Osama died:

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Q24 429

Q24 429

If he was killed on that day, then why withold pictures of his body? The administration claims that the entire Moslem world would rise up if such pictures were release. However, we had no problem releasing pictures of a dead Saddam Hussein and his sons or pictures of the former dead leader of Libya.

It is obvious that the administration is lying about the reasons for withholding those pictures and even films of the so called funeral at sea. And that answer is that the body they have is nothing more then skin and bones after being buried for years in the desert. OF couse they could have tried to use the body of an actor or a mannequin to simulate him, but that could lead to other problems such as questins about the Apollo pictures and the Martian rocks.

So the best answer to these problems is to withhold the pictures from the public.

It is a good question and I agree the reason given alone for withholding pictures is weak.

As you have said, the answer you suggest necessitates the U.S. mission was an extravagant fake. But then I maintain - why go through all that staging and fabricate a convoluted, and in places contradictory, back story that raises questions? Rather than just report bin Laden was found buried in the desert and died years ago of kidney failure - ha, he is dead and Obama brought it to you first.

There is another answer…

What do you assume bin Laden would look like in picture? Perhaps along the lines of Hussein and Gaddafi, no notable features except being battered and bloodied? Well suppose bin Laden was shot toward the back of the head. Have you seen the exit wounds bullets can make? He could have had half his face and skull missing.

Now it’s not the graphic nature of the picture that would be so much a problem - perhaps they could have pulled the pieces back together, stitched it up and made him somewhat presentable. The problem is, without faking anything… it’s going to be obvious what happened; that bin Laden met his end in premeditated murder, facing away from the shooter.

Was that after his surrender? Whilst turning away in fear? Cowering on the floor or in a corner? These are all questions that would reasonably be raised. It would show there was never any intent to take bin Laden out of that compound alive. It disputes the argument that bin Laden resisted. It would be a difficult public and international relations issue for the U.S. If this were the case then it makes the official line about not wanting to incite anyone rather more believable - the Obama administration just aren’t giving the full explanation.

An extravagant staged event and outright lies all just so Obama could boast the kill was made under his watch?

Or a bullet in the back of the head?

These both might answer why no picture was released more strongly than the official line, though the second is by far more straightforward.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

MID 364

MID 364

Forum Divinity

Member

364

14,492 posts

Gender:Male

...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

frenat 872

frenat 872

If he was killed on that day, then why withold pictures of his body? The administration claims that the entire Moslem world would rise up if such pictures were release. However, we had no problem releasing pictures of a dead Saddam Hussein and his sons or pictures of the former dead leader of Libya.

It is obvious that the administration is lying about the reasons for withholding those pictures and even films of the so called funeral at sea. And that answer is that the body they have is nothing more then skin and bones after being buried for years in the desert. OF couse they could have tried to use the body of an actor or a mannequin to simulate him, but that could lead to other problems such as questins about the Apollo pictures and the Martian rocks.

So the best answer to these problems is to withhold the pictures from the public.

NONE of those pictures were released by the US media or military. They were released in other sources first.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Mike 215 3

Mike 215 3

Let us say that he died years go and his body was just discovered earlier this year. IF the annoucement was made, there was the possiblity that former president Bush might make a statement that his program to harass and try to kill him put him in an early grave. So where does that leave Obama? Nowhere with not even on little point added to his polls.

But by faking his assassination with SEALS, secret helicopters, and intrigue helped his poll numbers. Remember him seating with the generals, Ms. Clinton and others on his staff listening to the SEALS reports? Even Hollywood could not do better.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Q24 429

Q24 429

Let us say that he died years go and his body was just discovered earlier this year. IF the annoucement was made, there was the possiblity that former president Bush might make a statement that his program to harass and try to kill him put him in an early grave. So where does that leave Obama? Nowhere with not even on little point added to his polls.

But by faking his assassination with SEALS, secret helicopters, and intrigue helped his poll numbers. Remember him seating with the generals, Ms. Clinton and others on his staff listening to the SEALS reports? Even Hollywood could not do better.

Bush might have claimed he harassed bin Laden to death so Obama staged an operation to counter that?

Is that more likely than the theory I set out on the previous page?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

MID 364

MID 364

Forum Divinity

Member

364

14,492 posts

Gender:Male

...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

Photographs of Saddam Hussein's feared sons laid out in plastic body bags were released by the US today in a bid to convince sceptical Iraqis that neither would follow their father into power. A spokesman for the US-led civil authority in Iraq said that journalists would be allowed to film the bodies for themselves tomorrow to dispel any doubts that the photographs were authentic.

Seems there's some disagreement.

How would this be relevant to Bin Laden's death?

Did we have to convince sceptical Iraquis that the terror that oppressed them wouldn't return?

DNA, he was photographed, we had multiple eye witnesses, there was no doubt.

I think there was no reason to show those photos.

Is it that we must publish such things to convince you and people like you that he really is dead?

Link to post

Share on other sites

Scott G 4

Scott G 4

I think he's as correct as anyone who wants to believe, and who uses his energy not to study and learn, but to troll forums with nonsensical repititions.

Perhaps you might put a little energy into finding a few sources of your own instead of just bad mouthing those you disagree with.

They're sources alright. they're the only sources you're going to be able to find.

How would you know? You spend more time criticizing then researching.

However, they're all highly suspect, and of dubious if not complete irrelevance...

According to you, right? Seriously, do some research instead of just continuing with these pointless insults.

Who cares where he was on September 11, 2001?

Yeah, what does it matter if the U.S. could have apprehended him mere moments after 9/11? The FBI admitted they had no hard evidence on him anyway. That about right?

He didn't execute a well designed plan.

Or he didn't execute the plan at all. But who cares right?

He could've been anywhere and it would've happened.

On this, we agree completely. However, we probably have differing views as to why this is so. However, it still does matter where the Patsy was. Mainly because if the U.S. didn't care where he was after 9/11, it tends to suggest that they knew he wasn't guilty; or they knew he was guilty but didn't care. Either way, your cavalier attitude to where Osama bin Laden was shortly before and perhaps during 9/11 doesn't do you much credit.

So what? 19 million hits is significant how?

It suggests that there are a lot of people who don't believe the official story.

Iranian intelligence???

Now you're really stretching.

No, I'm reporting the news. Am I saying that I believe Iranian intelligence point blank? Ofcourse not. But neither will I dismiss it just because they don't generally agree with the U.S.

And even more ridiculous, Pakistani Intelligence?

How good is that intel????

Look, it's information, alright? Pakistan, unlike Iran, is allegedly the U.S.'s friend, although you've probably seen recently that that relationship wasn't perhaps as cozy as some may have believed. That being said, there are some interesting connections between Pakistani intelligence and what occurred on 9/11, that also ties in with certain U.S. officials. Take, for instance, the case of Pakistania General Mahmud:

It's interesting (not) how all of this supposedly significant stuff you posted came out after Bin Laden was killed...not when it should've been published...before the US raid that actually killed him.

Actually, it did. It just didn't get so much coverage before he was "officially" killed. If you're actually interested in learning more about the reports of his death before 9/11, feel free to read more on that in this wikipedia page:

The U.S. released pictures of Hussein and his dead sons to prove their claim and allowed journalists access to obtain independent footage to “dispel any doubts” about their authenticity. This is in contrast to the bin Laden situation where pictures have not been released and no independent access was granted.

It is quite understandable that people question reason for the inconsistency.

I think there was no reason to show those photos.

Is it that we must publish such things to convince you and people like you that he really is dead?

What's the point?

The point is, after many contradicting reports of bin Laden’s whereabouts and death over the years, not everyone is so trusting as you that the U.S. word is the definitive word.

Anyhow, if you had read my last few posts you would know I don’t want or need to see pictures - I believe bin Laden was assassinated on that day, May 2nd 2011, in Abbottabad. Not simply because the U.S. told me, but because in my consideration of the complete evidence it is the most logical answer that follows.

I would still like to know the official U.S. stance on whether Pakistani intelligence and military elements were complicit in protecting bin Laden. I know U.S. authorities and the CIA director seemed convinced and were asking questions, then… nothing. Why the lack of response to this state harbouring the biggest terrorist of all?

Perhaps it is that the U.S. and Pakistan are on the same page, where it matters.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

MID 364

MID 364

Forum Divinity

Member

364

14,492 posts

Gender:Male

...The greatest error is not to have tried and failed, but that in trying, we did not give it our best effort.

The U.S. released pictures of Hussein and his dead sons to prove their claim and allowed journalists access to obtain independent footage to “dispel any doubts” about their authenticity. This is in contrast to the bin Laden situation where pictures have not been released and no independent access was granted.

It is quite understandable that people question reason for the inconsistency.

The confusion is yours alone.

You said those pictures were released to dispell rumors, and attempted to equate those Hussein photos to the pictures that weren't released of Bin Laden.

The Hussein pictures, as I said, were released to prove to the Iraqi people that some of their tormenters were indeed dead. The Bin Laden photos didn't need to be released to convince any oppressed people that their tormenter was dead.

The point is, after many contradicting reports of bin Laden’s whereabouts and death over the years, not everyone is so trusting as you that the U.S. word is the definitive word.

And who needs to have this proof about Bin Laden?

Anyhow, if you had read my last few posts you would know I don’t want or need to see pictures - I believe bin Laden was assassinated on that day, May 2nd 2011, in Abbottabad. Not simply because the U.S. told me, but because in my consideration of the complete evidence it is the most logical answer that follows.

Well, that's something at least.

I would still like to know the official U.S. stance on whether Pakistani intelligence and military elements were complicit in protecting bin Laden. I know U.S. authorities and the CIA director seemed convinced and were asking questions, then… nothing. Why the lack of response to this state harbouring the biggest terrorist of all?

I don't know.

Write them and ask.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Q24 429

Q24 429

The Hussein pictures, as I said, were released to prove to the Iraqi people that some of their tormenters were indeed dead.

Right, we are saying the same thing here: the U.S. released pictures to prove Hussein’s sons were dead, thus dispelling rumours they may still be alive. I’m not sure why you felt the need to disagree on that in the first place. It distracted from the reasonable point you were really making…

The Bin Laden photos didn't need to be released to convince any oppressed people that their tormenter was dead.

And who needs to have this proof about Bin Laden?

You are highlighting that pictures of Hussein’s sons were released for the specific purpose of putting the Iraqis’ minds at ease; to enable reform without the spectre of the previous regime hanging over them. The argument is that there was no equivalent reason to release pictures of bin Laden.

I would agree with that - it is true bin Laden never had the same iron-grip over people that Hussein did.

Have you noticed how many people around the world don’t believe a thing the U.S. say anymore? For a growing number, if the U.S. is making the claim, it is automatically assumed to be a lie, whether it is the truth or not! That hasn’t happened by chance. It is at the stage where even staunch supporters of officialdom no longer accept all of the public explanations we are given. For example, near every one of us knows that hunting terrorists, disarming weapons of mass destruction and/or saving civilians is a cover to securing energy resources, i.e. oil, in recent conflicts. Even you have acknowledged it before, MID. Look at the recent Libya action - I haven’t seen anyone defend the official reason the U.S. and NATO went in. This general awareness of the real aim has been on the rise for some time now - the lies are all too frequent.

So who needs this proof about bin Laden? The U.S. as much as anyone. If for nothing more than a confidence exercise with citizens both foreign and domestic. This claim it would incite extremists is weak; extremists have plenty bigger cause to be incited already. Had pictures of bin Laden been released it could only have increased U.S. credibility.

Well, unless such pictures would reveal something more damning, as I’ve previously mentioned.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

psychoticmike 11

psychoticmike 11

I wasn't proven wrong. All that was proven was that we have different opinions about the implications of Bin Laden's speech. I see it meaning one thing, you see it meaning something else. I don't agree with your interpretation, and you don't agree with mine. I see little point discussing it further as I'm doubtful that either side will budge.

sorry for the late response, my computers been acting up. I still think you were proven wrong, because you think that that was been laden confessing responcibility for the 911 attacks. But like you said, thats all up for interpretation. Sure i think he played a part no doubt, but i don't see how you read that as a direct confession. I personally don't believe the official story, there are many unanswered questions so to me its not a waste of time.

Or should I attempt to reword my position better? Should I rebut your statements? Would that not also be a waste of time? In my opinion it would.

Theres no need for that, i see your point, but if you want to go right ahead.

Right now, based on the responses both you and Q24 gave, I don't expect a truthful assessment from either of you on the core issues that I pointed out.

So what are you saying here? that if someone disagrees with your position they must be lying?

As an example of what fueled this decision I will address a concern you raised which you apparently believe has "proven me wrong."

You are comparing random thoughts that have come to your mind with a deliberately written and carefully worded speech by Bin Laden specifically about the September 11th attacks. And you think this has proven me wrong? If you can't inherently see the difference between these two things and how they are completely dissimilar, I doubt that anything I can say will ever convince you of my point of view.

how is that in any way dissimilar? Its a perfectly valid point, just because someone thought of something, does not mean they acted on it, what don't you understand about that? Thats a nice assumption on your part, but it doesn't help you much. Your assuming i think that 1 point is what proved you wrong. Well if thats the case then i would have only wrote that 1 point as a response.

Hence, it is a waste of time.

We disagree, so thats a waste of time? Well then i guess all human existance is a waste of time, since we all disagree about a multitude of things. Would that make every post on um a waste of time? since no matter what theres almost always someone who disagrees with it?

From my position the speech is a blatant confession of Bin Laden's involvement in the whole thing, from your position I'm misinterpreting what he said.

Share on other sites

booNyzarC
3,015

booNyzarC 3,015

I still think you were proven wrong, because you think that that was been laden confessing responcibility for the 911 attacks.

That's nice. I still think that I wasn't proven wrong. I guess that leaves us... where we were.

But like you said, thats all up for interpretation.

It is indeed.

Sure i think he played a part no doubt, but i don't see how you read that as a direct confession.

Well that's comforting. The first part anyway.

I personally don't believe the official story, there are many unanswered questions so to me its not a waste of time.

Enjoy your continued search for answers then.

So what are you saying here? that if someone disagrees with your position they must be lying?

No, I didn't say that at all.

Your assuming i think that 1 point is what proved you wrong. Well if thats the case then i would have only wrote that 1 point as a response.

No, not at all. I only addressed 1 point because I didn't feel like dealing with any others. Why not? Because it is a waste of time.

We disagree, so thats a waste of time? Well then i guess all human existance is a waste of time, since we all disagree about a multitude of things. Would that make every post on um a waste of time? since no matter what theres almost always someone who disagrees with it?

If that is what you choose to believe, have at it.

fair enough, care to refute the rest of my points?

No, I have no interest in engaging in 9/11 conspiracy theory discussions any longer. I find them tedious and completely unrewarding.

sorry, i don't know how to quote the right way.

It isn't very difficult. I'm confident that you can learn how if you put your mind to it.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

skyeagle409
2,909

skyeagle409 2,909

That video is highly flawed, and to underline my point, no evidence of planted explosives was ever found after more than 10 years. Here is another example that foreign terrorist, not the U.S. government, were responsible. I have said that many times that heat weakened the structural supports to the point of failure, so it was just a matter of time before the buildings would collapse.

NY judge: Al-Qaida owes $9.3 billion for 9/11 harm

YORK (AP) — A magistrate judge in New York has recommended al-Qaida be assessed $9.3 billion for the damage done to properties and businesses in the Sept. 11 attacks.

Federal Magistrate Judge Frank Maas in a ruling Friday sent the recommendation to a district judge presiding over a lawsuit brought by several insurance companies.

The companies in 2003 sued various defendants, seeking damages for the 2001 terror attacks, which demolished the World Trade Center's twin towers. Al-Qaida never responded to the lawsuit and was found in default in 2006. Maas determined the actual damages and then tripled them as allowed by law.

At this time, the companies were only seeking an assessment of damages against al-Qaida. The organization founded by Osama bin Laden is blamed for orchestrating the terror attacks.

I disagree with that message. In regards to United 175, a message was sent from United 175 to San Francisco and then relayed to Chicago, so United Airlines knew that United 175 was hijacked.

In regards to American 11, check it out.

American Flight 11

Fifteen minutes into the flight, the hijackers injured at least three people, forcibly breached the cockpit, and overpowered the captain and first officer. Mohamed Atta, an al-Qaeda member and trained pilot, took over the controls. Air-traffic controllers noticed the flight was in distress when the crew was no longer responding. They realized the flight had been hijacked when Mohammad Atta mistakenly transmitted his announcements for passengers to air traffic control. On board, flight attendantsAmy Sweeney and Betty Ong contacted American Airlines, and provided information about the hijackers and injuries to passengers and crew.

The fact that airline pilots aboard United 175, American 11, United 93, and American 77 failed to respond to ATC communication attempts, the unauthorized course changes, and transponder tampering should have been the message that all four aircraft were hijacked. Add to the fact that crewmembers aboard those flights are now deceased along with their passengers should have been another message that they were victims of hijackers.

The confirmation came in an Internet statement posted on militant websites, signed by "the general leadership" of al Qaeda. The announcement opens the way for the group to name a successor to bin Laden. His deputy Ayman al-Zawahri is now the most prominent figure in the group and is a very likely contender to take his place.